Find Ancestors

Oh please dont mention Pilot Search! What is a Glob!

Well, I guess if these old hands can't understand the thread ... just imagine how newbies feel when faced with those globs of C&P from censuses from various sources, the IGI ... oh yes, and I was going to mention pilot.familysearch:

Name: Florence Emma Bond Hill
Gender: Female
Baptism/Christening Date: 04 Feb 1880
Baptism/Christening Place: St. Bartholomew, Salford, Lancashire, England
Birth Date:
Birthplace:
Death Date:
Name Note:
Race:
Father's Name: William Stephen Hoare Hill
Father's Birthplace:
Father's Age:
Mother's Name: Harriett Lea
Mother's Birthplace:
Mother's Age:
Indexing Project (Batch) Number: I01616-1
System Origin: England-EASy
Source Film Number: 1786460
Reference Number: yr 1879-1880 p 57
Collection: England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975


or

Name: Florence Emma Bond Hill
Gender: Female
Baptism/Christening Date: 04 Feb 1880
Baptism/Christening Place: St. Bartholomew, Salford, Lancashire, England
Father's Name: William Stephen Hoare Hill
Mother's Name: Harriett Lea
Collection: England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975

?

And I should note that when C&Ping from a free source like FreeBMD, FreeREG, familysearch, pilot.familysearch or the 1911, I try to remember to give the url (link), so that newbies can see that this isn't stuff we conjure up by magic.

In the cupboard M have already drank it, so understand the thread now. lol

**Ann**, To buy, or to drink ?

Well read it through...........just off for a couple of paracetamol and a bottle of Vodka!! lol
Ann

I try to always remove extraneous material from censuses, and to add information from the image. The same for bmd records from the London Archives


but sometimes I just get too tired to make the extra effort!




sylvia

If you look at several of the replies this evening you will see that lots of volunteers could not give a fig for comprehension and brevity.
Or they cannot be bothered to comment on here as to why they copy empty space and VIEW?
(But I speak from the viewpoint of someone who had one of my census results increased in size by a helper who found it difficult to understand)

Renes....what the f### are you on about women?

Lost in Janey space.......oh my god. For those who are not familiar...OMG

Glad you're back Rose

JC....you're sooo not empathic ;)

I know you are Janey lol ;) and as I say I DO understand the very sensible reasons for it :)

RR -- I'm guilty of those edits. Some reasons:

a page only holds 14 posts, and it's so much easier to follow for the poster if they don't have to go page to page

it makes sense to present basic information together, especially if it's "for ref" because a poster didn't offer it

not realizing anyone else is searching, I just blithely update a post (a reason being as above)

If someone else has come along and added the same info simultaneously, though, I always add (or edit the post to add) an Oops, crossed in the post, RR -- you got that one too! or some such acknowledgement.

Hilarious.


Someone else's turn now (and again, this applies to virtually all posts with C&Ps from the 1911):


ROWETT, Frank John Head Married M 38 1873 Motor Car Cleaner William Street London VIEW
ROWETT, Sophia Wife Married
16 years F 36 1875 Notting Hill London VIEW

>> this is nuts. It took *me* ages to figure out what these things were saying. She's 16 years old?

It's:

ROWETT, Sophia Wife Married 16 years F 36 1875 Notting Hill London

Two easy keystrokes: add a space after "Married" and hit delete to combine the lines.

Continuing ...

ROWETT, Hellie Daughter Single F 15 1896 Electric Lamp Works Notting Hill London VIEW
ROWETT, Frank S Son Single M 14 1897 School Notting Hill London VIEW
ROWETT, Alice Daughter Single F 10 1901 School Notting Hill London VIEW
GEORGE, Jack Father In Law Married M 73 1838 Old Age Pensioner Exeter Devon VIEW

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>> Where does this dotted line come from, and why is it needed? In many cases these dotted lines look like they're supposed to be separating one copied record from another, when in fact they're in the middle of each copied record.

Continuing:

RG number:
RG14 Piece:
223 Reference:
RG14PN223 RG78PN7 RD3 SD1 ED27 SN104

>> This stuff is just not of the slightest interest to 99.99% of posters. And besides, what it actually *says* at the source is:

RG number: RG14
Piece: 223
Reference: RG14PN223 RG78PN7 RD3 SD1 ED27 SN104



Registration District:
Fulham Sub District:
North Hammersmith Enumeration District:
27 Parish:
Hammersmith

Address:
419 Latimer Road Notting Hill W County:
London

>> That is not what any of that actually *says*, it's just how it copies in some browsers. It doesn't actually say

"North Hammersmith Enumeration District:"

for instance. So what the person with the request is getting isn't decipherable. What it actually *says* is:

Registration District: Fulham
Sub District: North Hammersmith
Enumeration District: 27
Parish: Hammersmith

Address: 419 Latimer Road Notting Hill W
County: London

Again, it takes the addition of a space, a delete, and an enter, to present the information in the format in which it actually belongs!

tsk Ginny, that's a terrible waste of















































































































































































space ! lol

There is one thing ( one?!!) that tends to niggle , though I understand perfectly why it is done..

Person A adds, for example, the 1861 census in response to a query, Person B (me) adds the 1871 census, then seeing that no one has added after me I also add the 1881....

and only then notice that person A has gone back and added both to their 1861 post in the meantime.....which makes me look a bit dumb for adding what A has 'already' put '10 minutes' after A posted.....

Just to add - I for one have been extremely grateful for all and every post I have had in response to my TTF - however they have been printed

Thank you all

Irene

I'm keeping a copy of this thread...I dont think Ive ever seen JC beg ;)

1891 England Census
about William Abbott
Name: William Abbott
[William Smith]
[William Parnell] ,,,,,,,Whatever
Age: 75
Estimated birth year: abt 1816
Relation: Head
Spouse's name: Catherine Abbott
[Emma Abbott]
Gender: Male
Where born: Pailton, Warwickshire, England
Civil parish: Monks Kirby
Ecclesiastical parish: Monks Kirby
Town: Monks Kirby
County/Island: Warwickshire
Country: England
Emmers or Corry
Make
Straight/Gay
Black/white/brown/grey/other
Model
Colour
Hair style
Bank account
Sex life
Fav TV programme
Husbands affairs
Most hated work colleague
Street Address:
Occupation:
Tumble dry/outdoor dry
Condition as to marriage:
Education:
Employment status: View image
Smoker
Drinker or drunk
Tenna?...how many
Registration district: Lutterworth
Sub-registration district: Lutterworth
ED, institution, or vessel: 28
Neighbors: View others on page
Household Members: Name Age
William Abbott 75(lady next doors fancy bit)
Catherine Abbott 73
Emma Abbott 40
Elizabeth Abbott 8

Now what the hecks wrong with that then....sheesh, youre a fussy old pants

Irene -- all of which strengthens my resolve to die without ever owning a cell phone (or anything they evolve into) ;) I can't even stand laptop keyboards!

Occupation and address are standard issue at Ancestry for the 1881 only, and have to be got from the images otherwise. (I do that too, and birthplaces for other household members, when it looks to be of concern to the poster or useful for further searching.) I think other sources -- FMP and GR -- show them on the transcriptions. Ancestry needs to catch up.

Shirley

I like your replies - with occ + addresses

Irene

JC
My phone thing is an IPod touch - the white gaps occur when I Review my post before submitting

I have to hit return key to read what I have written -

Renes - inproofed

I'm with you on all that. ;)

Even if two or three people post, say, a census record at about the same time, because they did the search and posted before realizing someone else was doing it almost simultaneously -- why not delete it when than happens? If you still want to follow the thread, just edit the post to delete the content and say something like "deleted duplicate 1881 record", and that way it stays in yr "My threads" -- but doesn't fill that thread up with noise!